News:


Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - RDPreus

#1
Your Turn / Re: Who Does More Blocking?
Today at 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Today at 07:45:16 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on Today at 06:47:40 AMThe LCMS has caved on birth control, is weak on feminism and divorce, and has stood firm against abortion, homosexuality, and the trans movement.

Is it correct to assume that the LCMS opposition to homosexuality and the trans movement is based, in part, on the assumption that both are lifestyle choices?

I don't think one chooses to be plagued by certain temptations and not others.  Folks are subject to different kinds of temptations.  I am not tempted to homosexuality or pedophilia, nor have I any desire to be a woman.  But I am tempted in other ways toward other sins.  When I give into temptation to sin, I must acknowledge my sin and repent, trusting in the forgiveness of sins that God gives me freely for Christ's sake.  If I choose to sin and refuse to acknowledge that it is sin, how can I receive forgiveness?  Faith alone receives forgiveness.  What we are arguing is whether faith can coexist with impenitence.  I say no. It sounds to me that you are saying yes.  We should bear one another's burdens.  We should not treat people who are trapped in sin with contempt, but with love.  It is love that urges repentance because repentance is good.  The angels in heaven rejoice over it!
#2
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
Today at 07:05:40 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on Today at 12:07:38 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on Yesterday at 09:49:47 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on Yesterday at 06:34:13 PMIf it isn't your interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 that leads you to oppose all homosexual behaviors, then what is the basis of your opposition?

Romans 1:26-27.

I read those same words and conclude that they have nothing to do with same-sex marriages. The great difference in understand must come from our interpretations.

I disagree.  The text stands.  It is impossible to regard these words as normative for our doctrine and then to teach that homosexual sex is not inherently sinful.  You just don't believe the Bible.  You can say that you've studied this matter.  But all of your study cannot change the plain sense of the words before us.  There is no need to "interpret" these words.  Rather, we should believe them, because God spoke them.  That's the issue.  Do you believe these words of God?  You don't.  For me to concede that you do and that you and I differ on matters of interpretation and not on the authority of the written Word of God would be for me to deny the perspicuity of the Scriptures and concede that they don't necessarily mean what they say.  There goes sola Scriptura and with it Lutheranism.
#3
Your Turn / Re: Who Does More Blocking?
Today at 06:47:40 AM
Birth control, abortion, no fault divorce, feminism, homosexuality, and finally the proliferation of "genders" and the notion that we can choose whichever "gender" we want are all part of the same movement.  It's an assault on Christianity, marriage, and the family.  It's not hard to find theological justification for these things.  You do have to set aside sound doctrine, but that's easy enough to do.  The LCMS has caved on birth control, is weak on feminism and divorce, and has stood firm against abortion, homosexuality, and the trans movement.  The ELCA is all aboard on all of these issues.  While the very idea that accommodation to homosexuality came from the church and from there went out into the world is absurd, it cannot be denied that in the political push to impose this new morality on the nation and to codify it in law, the powers that be were aided by allies in the churches.  I have often wondered if Minnesota would have passed its same sex "marriage" law if the ELCA had strongly and publicly opposed it.
#4
Your Turn / Re: Who Does More Blocking?
Yesterday at 10:07:36 PM
Quote from: Charles Austin on Yesterday at 05:03:57 PMI just can't let this foolishness pass.
Pastor Preus:
Rev. Austin, God's favor does not rest on false doctrine.
Me:
And it is not "true doctrine" that saves us.

Pastor Preus:
You write, "I endorse women clergy, partnered gay clergy, communion sharing with Presbyterians. I reject the historic existence of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood."  God's Word forbids women clergy.
Me:
Your literalistic interpretation, placing more weight on words than on the Word, does that.

Pastor Preus:
God's Word condemns homosexual behavior.  God's Word teaches that the Lord's Supper is for those who believe that the bread and wine really are the body and blood of Jesus.  God's Word teaches that Adam and Eve are historical persons.  God's Word teaches the historicity of Noah's flood.
Me:
See above.

Pastor Preus:
Yet you openly deny what God's Word teaches.  I cite the Lutheran Confessions where we Lutherans say that false doctrine should not be tolerated in the church of God, much less excused and defended.
Me:
And again, you bury the Lord Jesus - the Word - under your interpretation of words, some of those words questionable.

Pastor Preus:
And what is your 82-year-old response?  You say Nonsense.  You're too old, you say, to engage in a defense of your position.
Me:
Stop being a freeloader and subscribe to Forum Letter. You will read there how - for many decades - I defended the Lutheran confessions.

Pastor Preus:
Your assaults on the Bible and the Bible's teachings hurt people.  They bring people to doubt Jesus.
Me:
Your fanatic literalism drives people away from God and Jesus. It prevents them from hearing the grace of God. I have dealt with wounded and nearly faith-dead people who were indoctrinated by people like you.

Pastor Preus:
... You don't deny the historicity of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood because there is anything in the Bible that leads you to do so.  You deny it because you want to conform to this world.
Me:
BS. And shame on you for stupid long-distance, never-met-the-guy psychoanalysis.

Pastor Preus:
.... So, the mass exodus out of liberal churches continues.
Me:
And your part of the church is growing by leaps and bounds, correct?

Pastor Preus:
You won't live to see it, but the ELCA will die.  Why?  Because she attacked the foundation, the teaching of the prophets and apostles, the facticity, truthfulness, inerrancy, of the written Word of God.
Me:
Believe it or not, much of what shaped where I am today came from Lutheran Church Missouri theologians and biblical scholars.
  I'm hanging out now with other seniors who have a much more expensive, gracious, loving, non-fanatical Lutheranism than is reflected by your postings here. Thank God for them, and for the God-given intelligence and grace that led them to where we are today.
 And I do not believe the views you represent are those of the vast majority in your church body. But I shall leave your brothers and sisters within the church body to struggle with you on that. I'm not sure why they don't speak up more, but it may be because they don't consider you worth the trouble.

I'm pretty sure that on the topics you have raised, most people in the LCMS agree with me.  You would call them fanatical literalists.  You drip contempt for the people of the LCMS.  By comparison, the Democrat assessment of MAGA Republicans is positively charitable.  I am not engaging in psychoanalysis by saying that you want to conform to this world.  I am assuming that you want to do what you are doing.  Of course, I could be wrong.  Maybe you really want to go with what the Bible says, and some irresistible power forces you conform to this world.  At any rate, you do conform to this world on the matters under discussion. 
#5
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
Yesterday at 09:49:47 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on Yesterday at 06:34:13 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on Yesterday at 11:32:44 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 10:27:59 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on Yesterday at 10:00:52 AM.

If it isn't your interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 that leads you to oppose all homosexual behaviors, then what is the basis of your opposition?

Romans 1:26-27.
#6
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
Yesterday at 01:38:10 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 01:09:19 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on Yesterday at 01:02:42 PMI haven't used the term "manifest sin."  I have spoken of "manifest and impenitent" sinners.  Both manifest (it is clear; there is no question about whether he did it) and impenitent (he is not sorry he did it and intends to keep on doing it) must obtain.  All Christians are sinners.  Sometimes their sins become manifest.  But Christians repent of their sins.  They do not hold onto them in impenitence.  The Catechism I memorized as a child and taught to more catechumens than I can remember includes these words,

I believe that, when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, especially when they exclude manifest and impenitent sinners from the Christian congregation, and, again, when they absolve those who repent of their sins and are willing to amend, this is as valid and certain, in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with us Himself.

Which sins do you get to commit over, and over, and over again and still claim to be penitent.  You are laying on the homosexual a standard of repentance that you, yourself, are unable to satisfy.

You don't "get to" commit any sins at all.  Habitual sins such as getting drunk, masturbating, outbursts of anger, lying, malicious gossiping, etc. are committed, regretted, and confessed by millions of Christians every day.  God is gracious.  And he's just as gracious to a homosexual who struggles against his homosexual desires as he is to the gossip who can't keep her mouth shut and sincerely regrets the evil she has spoken.  He is full of mercy toward the husband who belittles his wife, to the wife who disrespects her husband, to the child who dishonors his mother, to every kind of sinner there is.  Faith is how God's forgiveness and grace are received.  Faith cannot coexist with impenitence.  To desire forgiveness of sin entails desiring to avoid that sin. 

Repentance is necessary.  One cannot be a Christian without it.  It's an everyday thing. Since we sin every day, we repent every day.  Our baptism provides us with the forgiveness of sins that Jesus won for us by his bitter suffering and death.  Repentance is a good thing.  It's really the most wonderful experience you can have.  For in repentance the sinner receives grace, more than enough to cover all of his sin.  To deny to a sinner repentance is to deny to him any hope at all.  It is to rob him of forgiveness.  And that is what you are doing, Mr. Mundinger, when you defend ongoing unrepentant homosexual sex.  You consign men burdened by desires and sins that God graciously forgives to a condition of alienation from God.  You won't let them be reconciled to God.  No.  They cannot be.  Because you have taught them that they don't need to repent of their sin of homosexuality.  They can "marry" each other and engage in homosexual sex without acknowledging that this is sinful and without repenting of this sin.  You say we conservatives lay burdens on homosexuals.  No!  It's you who does.  We teach them that God's love for them in Christ is greater than their sin of homosexuality. We teach them that God forgives them all of their sins.  We teach them how to receive this forgiveness.  But you, by teaching them that they may continue to engage in homosexual sex without repentance, shut the door of God's grace, rob them of it, and consign these precious souls for whom Christ died to hell.  It is we who love them.  Not you.  If you loved them, you would speak the truth to them.

#7
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
Yesterday at 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 12:58:09 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on Yesterday at 11:32:44 AMThat "your interpretation" argument will not fly, Mr. Mundinger, for the simple reason that I have not offered any interpretation at all of Romans 1:26-27.

And, I have not offered any interpretation of the following, except to note that it does not include an exception for homosexuals.  But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.

You're right.  It doesn't include an exception for homosexuals.  And neither does it contain an exception for axe murderers, pedophiles, robbers, slanderers, adulterers, or idol worshippers.
#8
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
Yesterday at 01:02:42 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 12:52:08 PMYou and Pr. Preus insist on using the term "manifest sin" and, even if you haven't specifically said so, he has said that manifest sin is the equivalent of unbelief.

Quote from: aletheist on Yesterday at 11:59:53 AMThe key difference here is that anyone entering into a same-sex "marriage" is publicly proclaiming their intention to make a practice of sinning, which is a textbook case of manifest unrepentant sin.

What is the difference between making a public proclamation of the sins that you intend to commit vs. acknowledging to yourself that certain behaviors are sinful knowing that you will continue to commit the same and/or refusing to acknowledge that certain behaviors that you intend to continue to commit are sinful?

I'd suggest that, if the former is unbelief, then so is the latter and there is not hope for anyone.  But, we live with the unconditional promise of forgiveness and eternal life for all who believe in Jesus.

Quote from: aletheist on Yesterday at 11:59:53 AMBy contrast, any Christian man marrying a woman is publicly proclaiming his intention to love her as Christ loved the church, and any Christian woman marrying a man is publicly proclaiming her intention to submit to him as the church submits the Christ--even while recognizing that as sinners, they will both routinely fall short out of weakness.

I didn't make that promise at my wedding and I doubt that you did either.  Check the words in the liturgy for marriage.

I haven't used the term "manifest sin."  I have spoken of "manifest and impenitent" sinners.  Both manifest (it is clear; there is no question about whether he did it) and impenitent (he is not sorry he did it and intends to keep on doing it) must obtain.  All Christians are sinners.  Sometimes their sins become manifest.  But Christians repent of their sins.  They do not hold onto them in impenitence.  The Catechism I memorized as a child and taught to more catechumens than I can remember includes these words,

I believe that, when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, especially when they exclude manifest and impenitent sinners from the Christian congregation, and, again, when they absolve those who repent of their sins and are willing to amend, this is as valid and certain, in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with us Himself.
#9
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
Yesterday at 11:32:44 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 10:27:59 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on Yesterday at 10:00:52 AMMr. Mundinger, it has become painfully clear to me that you just don't believe the Bible.

I do not believe your interpretation of the Bible on the matter of homosexuality.  As I have already said, the way that you lean on Romans 1:26-27 clearly is not consistent with the first three chapters of Romans, when read and understood in their entirety.  Yo26-27u equate homosexual behavior with unbelief.  That works for those who embrace the theology of glory.  It doesn't work for those who embrace the theology of the Cross.

That "your interpretation" argument will not fly, Mr. Mundinger, for the simple reason that I have not offered any interpretation at all of Romans 1:26-27.  I have simply cited it.  And you have rejected it.  This brings to mind a conversation I had when I was in high school with my Roman Catholic girlfriend.  We would talk theology on dates.  On one date, I read to her Ephesians 2:8-9.  She was a bit surprised at what it said, but she quickly recovered and said, "I'll have to ask my priest."  So, the next week I asked her what her priest said about Ephesians 2:8-9.  She said, "He said it didn't mean what you said."  I said, "Donna, I didn't say what it meant.  I just read it."  She replied, "Well it doesn't mean that."
#10
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
Yesterday at 10:00:52 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 07:24:09 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on March 01, 2024, 05:29:01 PMIf by practicing sinners you mean manifestly impenitent sinners, then you are denying what Lutherans confess about manifest and impenitent sinners.  The issue is impenitence.  You appear to be saying that a manifestly impenitent sinner can have justifying faith.  That is to turn the gospel into license to sin.

I'd suggest that your operating definition of manifestly impenitent sinner is arbitrary.  Further, if you were to apply as rigidly to the other commandments in the second table as you apply it to the sixth and were honest with yourself, then you would have to conclude that you also are a manifestly impenitent sinner, too.

And, as a side note, if you are going to interpret Romans 1 as literally as you do, it leads to the conclusion that God gave homosexuals to unbelief already before they are born because homosexuality is not a choice.  I do not belief that is consistent with the character of God who shows His love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Mr. Mundinger, it has become painfully clear to me that you just don't believe the Bible.  God makes it crystal clear to you that homosexual sex is sinful.  His apostle Paul joins it to idolatry.  Yet you persist in defending this sinful practice.  Your argument is not with me.  It is with God's Word.  This thread is about Seminex.  I remember how angry the libs used to get in those days when they were labeled "Bible doubters."  Well, they were.  And so are you.  That's the real issue.  The Bible.  When the culture demands that you accept the "gay" rights agenda, you obey the culture.  But what about the Bible?  It must give way to the culture.  The same is true about evolution, women pastors, feminism and its spawn, and a host of issues where the culture contradicts the Bible.  Bible doubters go with the culture.  Why not just admit it?  But you won't.  You'll actually try to make a biblical case in favor of a perversion that the Bible explicitly condemns.  Why not just admit that the Bible is an old book that reflects the biases and prejudices of people who were not as enlightened as we are about such matters as sexual identity?  Why not admit that you don't believe what the Bible says?  Why do you oppose the Bible with the Bible?
#11
Your Turn / Re: Who Does More Blocking?
Yesterday at 07:58:39 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on Yesterday at 05:08:38 AMPastor Preus:
You won't hear me saying you are ok.  . . . We can still have friendly conversations, but it must be stated clearly that you have a different spirit. The position you espouse here "cannot be tolerated in the church of God, much less be excused and defended." FC SD Introduction paragraph 9

Me:
And this is why I closed Ye Olde Theology Shoppe. Even though I'm nearly 82 years old, life is still too short to waste time and faith on this sort of nonsense.


Rev. Austin, God's favor does not rest on false doctrine.  You write, "I endorse women clergy, partnered gay clergy, communion sharing with Presbyterians. I reject the historic existence of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood."  God's Word forbids women clergy.  God's Word condemns homosexual behavior.  God's Word teaches that the Lord's Supper is for those who believe that the bread and wine really are the body and blood of Jesus.  God's Word teaches that Adam and Eve are historical persons.  God's Word teaches the historicity of Noah's flood.  Yet you openly deny what God's Word teaches.  I cite the Lutheran Confessions where we Lutherans say that false doctrine should not be tolerated in the church of God, much less excused and defended.  And what is your 82-year-old response?  You say Nonsense.  You're too old, you say, to engage in a defense of your position.

Your assaults on the Bible and the Bible's teachings hurt people.  They bring people to doubt Jesus.  You cannot rip the Bible away from Jesus, trash its teaching, dismiss its truth, defy its law, and do no damage to the proclamation of the gospel.  The gospel is rooted in history.  God acts in history.  You dismiss this history.  If you took to heart the historicity of Adam and Eve, you wouldn't favor ordaining women and manifestly impenitent homosexuals.  You don't deny the historicity of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood because there is anything in the Bible that leads you to do so.  You deny it because you want to conform to this world.  When the church's teachers jettison the Bible for the wisdom of the world, they undermine any reason their hearers would have to remain associated with the church.  So, the mass exodus out of liberal churches continues.  You won't live to see it, but the ELCA will die.  Why?  Because she attacked the foundation, the teaching of the prophets and apostles, the facticity, truthfulness, inerrancy, of the written Word of God.  What a terrible tragedy! 
#12
Your Turn / Re: Who Does More Blocking?
March 01, 2024, 05:40:58 PM
Quote from: Charles Austin on March 01, 2024, 02:15:10 PMPastor Preus:
God's favor rests on Christ and on those clothed in Christ's righteousness.  It rests on people who have really screwy ideas, but who cling in simple faith to their Savior, Jesus.  Christ alone gains us God's favor.
Me:
Ok, I agree. I cling to faith in Jesus, expressed in our creeds.
But I endorse women clergy, partnered gay clergy, communion sharing with Presbyterians. I reject the historic existence of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood.
Still ok? I don't hear you saying that I am.


You won't hear me saying you are ok.  You have just explained why the LCMS cannot practice altar and pulpit fellowship with the ELCA.  We can still have friendly conversations, but it must be stated clearly that you have a different spirit.  The position you espouse here "cannot be tolerated in the church of God, much less be excused and defended." FC SD Introduction paragraph 9
#13
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
March 01, 2024, 05:29:01 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on March 01, 2024, 03:00:48 PM
Quote from: aletheist on March 01, 2024, 02:58:00 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on March 01, 2024, 02:18:22 PM
Quote from: RDPreus on March 01, 2024, 10:41:15 AMPracticing homosexuality is indeed evidence of unbelief.
If that is true, then all practicing sinners are likewise unbelievers and the promise of ACIV is empty.
Indeed, all practicing sinners are unbelievers, so the promise of AC IV is not for them. As 1 John 3 plainly states, they are "children of the devil," not "children of God"; and as we Lutherans believe, teach, and confess ...

You and I are practicing sinners.

If by practicing sinners you mean manifestly impenitent sinners, then you are denying what Lutherans confess about manifest and impenitent sinners.  The issue is impenitence.  You appear to be saying that a manifestly impenitent sinner can have justifying faith.  That is to turn the gospel into license to sin.
#14
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
March 01, 2024, 12:05:15 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on March 01, 2024, 11:48:57 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on March 01, 2024, 09:40:37 AMMr. Mundinger, we were talking about homosexuality.  I showed you from the Bible that it is a sin.  So you complain that I am focusing on where the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and I should look instead at where the Bible does not say homosexuality is a sin.  It's pretty obvious that you don't regard the Bible as the norm for your theology.  If it says something with which you disagree, you reject it.  Should someone else point out to you that portion of God's Word you have rejected, you will accuse him of proof texting, as if there is something wrong with proving God's teaching by citing God's Word.
When I quote Mark 10:11-12: He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

And Luke 16:18: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

You and others quickly jump to Matthew's version where there is an exception clause.

Or they change the topic from remarriages after divorce (= committing adultery) to divorce, which is allowed in cases of unfaithfulness or unbelief by a spouse.

If using other biblical contexts and/or modifying the topic is acceptable for your side concerning marrying a divorced person; it certainly can be used for our side in regards to same-sex marriages.

Romans 1-3 uses same-sex behaviors as one example of sins committed by unbelievers - and even the believers. Paul's bigger issue is showing that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Thinking that we are less sinful than those homosexuals because we don't engage in same-sex behaviors is contrary to Paul's message.

I'm not aware of ever discussing with you the differences between Matthew's and Mark's account of Jesus words on divorce.  I confess that when I was serving actively as a pastor, I did marry those who had had unscriptural divorces.  They expressed sorrow over their sin, and they couldn't remarry the person they had divorced.  I am somewhat conflicted about that.  If I could do it over again, I would not have done it.  On the matter of a same sex couple living together in a sexual relationship, that is, engaging in sex with each other and giving no indication that they acknowledge it as sin or intend to stop doing it, clearly these people are manifestly impenitent.  I've known many people who have had unscriptural divorces and have remarried and were genuinely contrite about their sin against their first spouse.  A same sex couple pretending that they are married are not contrite.  You're comparing apples with oranges.
#15
Your Turn / Re: Who Does More Blocking?
March 01, 2024, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on March 01, 2024, 10:01:20 AMPastor Preus, in an awkward mixture of (I think)satire and seriousness, writes:
I am an arch-conservative reactionary who is hostile to all new ideas.
I comment:
No argument from me on that.

Pastor Preus:
I have never blocked anyone, I don't know how to do it, and I don't want to learn.  I love to read posts from people with whom I disagree.  That way I can revel in my rightness and with smug self-assurance pity those who are consistently wrong.  Rev. Austin is one of my favorite posters!
Me:
Like the guy in the back of the temple, right? You are glad you're not me.
Here's the difference between us. I admit I could be wrong about some things, perhaps about many things, perhaps even about most things. I admit that someone who disagrees with me, might still be in God's favor.

That conservatives whose minds are closed to new ideas are far more generous (liberal) with their fellowman than are those who call themselves liberal is illustrated by your assertion, Rev. Austin, that you admit that someone who disagrees with you might still be in God's favor, but that I will not admit that someone who disagrees with me might still be in God's favor.  Can you see what you are doing?  Yes, you are judging.  And judging falsely.  God's favor rests on Christ and on those clothed in Christ's righteousness.  It rests on people who have really screwy ideas, but who cling in simple faith to their Savior, Jesus.  Christ alone gains us God's favor.  If you want to know what I really believe about God's favor, I'll let Paul Gerhardt explain.

1. A Lamb goes uncomplaining forth,
The guilt of all men bearing;
And laden with the sins of earth,
None else the burden sharing!
Goes patient on, grow weak and faint,
To slaughter led without complaint,
That spotless life to offer;
Bears shame and stripes, and wounds and death,
Anguish and mockery, and saith,
"Willing all this I suffer."

2. This Lamb is Christ, the soul's great Friend,
The Lamb of God, our Savior;
Him God the Father chose to send
To gain for us His favor.
"Go forth, My Son," the Father saith,
"And free men from the fear of death,
From guilt and condemnation.
The wrath and stripes are hard to bear,
But by Thy Passion men shall share
The fruit of Thy salvation."

3. "Yea, Father, yea, most willingly
I'll bear what Thou commandest;
My will conforms to Thy decree,
I do what Thou demandest."
O wondrous Love, what hast Thou done!
The Father offers up His Son!
The Son, content, descendeth!
O Love, how strong Thou art to save!
Thou beddest Him within the grave
Whose word the mountains rendeth.

4. From morn till eve my theme shall be
Thy mercy's wondrous measure;
To sacrifice myself for Thee
Shall be my aim and pleasure.
My stream of life shall ever be
A current flowing ceaselessly,
Thy constant praise outpouring.
I'll treasure in my memory,
O Lord, all Thou hast done for me,
Thy gracious love adoring.

5. Of death I am no more afraid,
New life from Thee is flowing;
Thy cross affords me cooling shade
When noonday's sun is glowing.
When by my grief I am opprest,
On Thee my weary soul shall rest
Serenely as on pillows.
Thou art my Anchor when by woe
My bark is driven to and fro
On trouble's surging billows.

6. And when Thy glory I shall see
And taste Thy kingdom's pleasure,
Thy blood my royal robe shall be,
My joy beyond all measure.
When I appear before Thy throne,
Thy righteousness shall be my crown,-
With these I need not hide me.
And there, in garments richly wrought
As Thine own bride, I shall be brought
To stand in joy beside Thee. (TLH 142)
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk